Bush: A 'stark reminder' of war

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: zendari
Those "international" attacks are targeted at foreign governments, not the United States. I'm glad you count a school siezure in Russia somewhere to be the equivalent of a US warship.

At least 2 of those attacks are directly on US soil.

One was the 9 years before 9/11 that I was refering too. You are now equating Oklahoma bombing by an American with al Quada? Nice stretch.

The point of the State dept info was that we are having more terrorist attacks world wide due to Bush's foreign policy. You cannot honestly look at one attack in 1992, one in 2001 and draw any significant statistical significance, you sound like a right wing Fwd:fwd:fwd e-mail and you know it. Stop posting and spare us all.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: daveshel
"...President Bush said the arrests are a "stark reminder" that the U.S. is "at war with Islamic fascists."

(source)

Say, Mr. President, whatever happened to the part where we were supposed to be looking for OBL? Maybe you need a stark reminder about that #1 priority!

I'm glad at least we've dropped the pretense about what this war really is about...

I noticed that too and was glad to see it.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: daveshel
"...President Bush said the arrests are a "stark reminder" that the U.S. is "at war with Islamic fascists."

(source)

Say, Mr. President, whatever happened to the part where we were supposed to be looking for OBL? Maybe you need a stark reminder about that #1 priority!

I'm glad at least we've dropped the pretense about what this war really is about...

I noticed that too and was glad to see it.

I guess you guys don't remember this crock:

Nearly three years after declaring a "war on terror", United States President George W Bush said on Friday that there was a more precise name for the global campaign sparked by the September 11, 2001 attacks.

"We actually misnamed the 'war on terror'," he said.

"It ought to be 'the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies and who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world'," he said in a speech.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: daveshel
"...President Bush said the arrests are a "stark reminder" that the U.S. is "at war with Islamic fascists."

(source)

Say, Mr. President, whatever happened to the part where we were supposed to be looking for OBL? Maybe you need a stark reminder about that #1 priority!

I'm glad at least we've dropped the pretense about what this war really is about...

Which war are you talking about?

The war in Afghanistan was allegedly about getting bin Laden but . . . dare I say . . . it was feebly executed so we settled for 'bringing democracy to the region.'

The war in Iraq was allegedly about getting the WMD but . . . dare I say . . . there wasn't any so it became 'liberating Iraq', then 'bringing democracy to Iraq', then 'bringing democracy to the Middle East,' then 'fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we won't have to fight them here . . . '

But let's no fool ourselves . . . you cannot possibly claim oil played NO PART in the rush to war in Iraq?!

I was referring to what used to be called the "war on terror" so as not to offend all 7 moderate muslims.

Whether or not you think it is being executed effectively has nothing to do with whether or not we are at war with islamic fascists.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: daveshel
"...President Bush said the arrests are a "stark reminder" that the U.S. is "at war with Islamic fascists."

(source)

Say, Mr. President, whatever happened to the part where we were supposed to be looking for OBL? Maybe you need a stark reminder about that #1 priority!

I'm glad at least we've dropped the pretense about what this war really is about...

i
I noticed that too and was glad to see it.

I guess you guys don't remember this crock:

Nearly three years after declaring a "war on terror", United States President George W Bush said on Friday that there was a more precise name for the global campaign sparked by the September 11, 2001 attacks.

"We actually misnamed the 'war on terror'," he said.

"It ought to be 'the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies and who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world'," he said in a speech.

"ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies and who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world'" = a really long way of saying "islamic fascists".

I suppose if christians, hindus, or FSM worshippers start crashing planes into buildings then we can expand the definition again.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: alchemize

"ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies and who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world'" = a really long way of saying "islamic fascists".

I suppose if christians, hindus, or FSM worshippers start crashing planes into buildings then we can expand the definition again.

I agree, I just thought it was funny. I have no issue with "Islamic fascists", though "Islamic extremist" is better.

The Christians had their day as crazy extremist and did far worse than kill 3,000 with a jet, but getting fat and driving SUVs tend to mellow people out.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: daveshel
"...President Bush said the arrests are a "stark reminder" that the U.S. is "at war with Islamic fascists."

(source)

Say, Mr. President, whatever happened to the part where we were supposed to be looking for OBL? Maybe you need a stark reminder about that #1 priority!

I'm glad at least we've dropped the pretense about what this war really is about...

Which war are you talking about?

The war in Afghanistan was allegedly about getting bin Laden but . . . dare I say . . . it was feebly executed so we settled for 'bringing democracy to the region.'

The war in Iraq was allegedly about getting the WMD but . . . dare I say . . . there wasn't any so it became 'liberating Iraq', then 'bringing democracy to Iraq', then 'bringing democracy to the Middle East,' then 'fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we won't have to fight them here . . . '

But let's no fool ourselves . . . you cannot possibly claim oil played NO PART in the rush to war in Iraq?!

I was referring to what used to be called the "war on terror" so as not to offend all 7 moderate muslims.

Whether or not you think it is being executed effectively has nothing to do with whether or not we are at war with islamic fascists.

Dude, this thing is right up there with the war on drugs when it comes to . . . 1) mistakes in focus, 2) mistakes in execution, and 3) mistakes in evaluation . . . oh and 4) mistake in nomenclature.

War on Terror was soundbite just like Axis of Evil . . . it rolled off the lips and was easy to remember but made no real sense if someone was compelled to explain what they meant.

What exactly is an Islamic fascist? Do they do things like this?

[The detainee] was stripped naked, put in the mud and sprayed . . . with very cold hoses in February. At night it was very cold. . . . He was completely naked in the mud, you know. . . . [Then] he was taken out of the mud and put next to an air conditioner. It was extremely cold, freezing, and he was put back in the mud and sprayed. This happened all night. Everybody knew about it. ? An interrogator with the special military and CIA task force at Camp Nama, Baghdad, quoted in a new 53-page Human Rights Watch report, "No Blood, No Foul: Soldiers' Accounts of Detainee Abuse in Iraq From 2003-2005."

There is no War on Terror, War on Islamic Extremism, or War on Islamic Fascism . . . there's a BS agenda about ruling the world (Bush, Blair-lite, PNAC turds) and a BS agenda about ruling the world (Islamic radicals). The only reason I don't include Christian radicals is that as generalization . . . those that say, 'honk if you love Jesus,' won't blow you up if you fly them the bird. For the record, I love Jesus.

The only way the Islamic radicals could win (spread) would be to topple the various totalitarian regimes that aren't currently run by theocrats. But that's pretty hard since most are supported by the US (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt). Thanks to Israel, one of the few democratic, moderate, unoppressive governments in the region is likely to be replaced with a far less democratic, radicalized government. In essence, doing what Hezbollah would have never been able to do on their own.

The US toppled the Taliban so that would be a plus one . . . then we toppled the largely secular Saddam which at this point is worth . . . minus FIVE.

So in sum, WOT, WOIE, WOIF are all just one big dumb arse idea that has now become a quagmire in Iraq, an exercise in futility in Afghanistan, LOSS of influence by moderates in the Islamic world, and a very negative world opinion of the USA. Call it a war if you like, but if that's the case we ain't winning . . .

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: daveshel
"...President Bush said the arrests are a "stark reminder" that the U.S. is "at war with Islamic fascists."

(source)

Say, Mr. President, whatever happened to the part where we were supposed to be looking for OBL? Maybe you need a stark reminder about that #1 priority!

I'm glad at least we've dropped the pretense about what this war really is about...

I noticed that too and was glad to see it.

I guess you guys don't remember this crock:

Nearly three years after declaring a "war on terror", United States President George W Bush said on Friday that there was a more precise name for the global campaign sparked by the September 11, 2001 attacks.

"We actually misnamed the 'war on terror'," he said.

"It ought to be 'the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies and who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world'," he said in a speech.

What's wrong with that statement, its reasonably accurate as we intrepret it in the west anyway.


Islamic fascists is good because he's willing to use the term Islamic.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The plot is a good way to get the focus off the humanitarian crisis US/Israel have caused in Lebanon.

The armed guards with automatic weapons and the mandate to remove bottled water and perfume from carry-on baggage is also a good way to give a little scare to passengers. Americans are getting complacent; time to give them a little jolt during primary season.

Nothing like reminding people about the good old Republican party and their highly successful campaign against terror :roll:

Yeah like people are going to smuggle a binary explosive on board. Where would they get that WALMART?

In truth I agree with them doing this but it would be on the list since the 80s and as a standard. Not as a tool to scare the population. That's criminal.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: alchemize

I was referring to what used to be called the "war on terror" so as not to offend all 7 moderate muslims.

Whether or not you think it is being executed effectively has nothing to do with whether or not we are at war with islamic fascists.

Is that why we went to war with the largest secular country in the Middle East?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: alchemize

I was referring to what used to be called the "war on terror" so as not to offend all 7 moderate muslims.

Whether or not you think it is being executed effectively has nothing to do with whether or not we are at war with islamic fascists.

Is that why we went to war with the largest sectarian country in the Middle East?

We went to war with the wrong country. We should have followed up with Iran after afghanistan.

 

[DealMonkey]

What many people fail to realize is that this War on Terror is an asynchronous conflict and therefore an effective counter-strategy does not include using your mass military forces other than special ops or pinpoint bombing. An effective War on Terror involves intel orgs who are on top of their sh!t along with law enforcement and special ops teams. There should be no boots on the ground required. Unless a country is harboring an internal terrorist org (like the Lebanon-Hezbolla situation, or Al Qaeda-Afghanistan situation).

That's why I see Iraq as a diversion and an unnecessary drain on our resources.

 

[alchemize]

DM: generally I agree but would expand slightly...

Special ops teams can't deliver air power (but they can direct it), or encircle a large camp, or search towns, or clear deep bunkers. That's where the mass military comes in. The mass military is also effective for a brief sweep (6-8 weeks) of a country to destroy hardened targets, ammo dumps, take out government officials followed by a withdrawl, and try to leave civilian infrastructure intact. That's what we should have done in Iraq, should do in Iran, should do in any country that has large crowds chanting "death to america" and crazy dictators spurring them on, while they try to develop nukes and ICBM's. Then they can kill each other till the camels come home.

I firmly believe that islam will only change 3 ways: 1) there are so many deaths from war, be it civil or external, that they finally go the route of Japan/Germany (the likely scenario) 2) Some amazingly charismatic PEACEFUL figure like ghandi, MLK, etc. comes out of nowhere and starts talking sense (very unlikely, and he'll just get beheaded) 3) The 7 moderate muslims start standing up as a group against the rest and demand they start behaving like civilized humans (also very unlikely, they'll just get beheaded)

 

[canadageek]

"terrorist plot foiled in early planning stages" heh. yeah right. it was probably a phone call.

"ah man.....i HATE traffic in the hudson tunnel. sometimes i just wish i could blow it up or something"

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: canadageek
"terrorist plot foiled in early planning stages" heh. yeah right. it was probably a phone call.

"ah man.....i HATE traffic in the hudson tunnel. sometimes i just wish i could blow it up or something"

You just got put on a watch list.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
What many people fail to realize is that this War on Terror is an asynchronous conflict and therefore an effective counter-strategy does not include using your mass military forces other than special ops or pinpoint bombing. An effective War on Terror involves intel orgs who are on top of their sh!t along with law enforcement and special ops teams. There should be no boots on the ground required. Unless a country is harboring an internal terrorist org (like the Lebanon-Hezbolla situation, or Al Qaeda-Afghanistan situation).

That's why I see Iraq as a diversion and an unnecessary drain on our resources.

:thumbsup:

This is what I have believed all along.

 

[beyoku]

They need to do a better job if they really want to catch terrorists and drug dealers. They say they have been investigating this thing for a long time.....hmmm.
My experience JUST coming back from Ethiopia Via london on Sunday.
-I had a Suitcase full of plastic bags of Ethiopian Teff. (White Powder Flour for cooking)
-Also 2 Plastic jugs of Ethiopian butter (looks like cooking oil).... all in my carry-on bag.
-Weight -30kg
-Mulitple times i gave them the heads up so i wouldnt alarm the Xray person.
-Even after declaring 2 items on the US customs Sheet i made it through 4 Xray machines with out them opening my carryon baggage before landing in JFK
-In JFK airport they didnt check, scan or xray ANY of my luggage, they just let me into the US at 9 PM.
MY rought was Ethiopia>London> via British Airways > JFK via American Airlines.
The security failed or just didnt care that what i was carrying looked like 30 kilos of Cocaine. No dogs, no test, carry-on bag was never opened.

So if they were looking for liquid they sure didnt seem like they were Sunday.

 

[randym431]

5 years after 9/11. And our ongoing war in Iraq, this threat should have never happened, if the Bush policy was indeed working. This is a wake-up call to wise men that we are and have been heading in the WRONG direction. And since Bush will NOT listen to the truth, or incapable of seeing the truth, things will never change.

Those that hate us and work against us are alive and kicking, and stronger than ever, thanks to a FAILED policy. A FAILED administration.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Well, I think Bush is a blubbering idiot. Name calling won't make you look any better Bushie.

Excuse me, fascists? When did a bunch of lunatics with suicide belts become fascist? Extremist, OK, that's reasonable because well, its true, but "Muslim fascists" not only refers to the nutjobs giving people like me a bad name, but could easily be seen as an insult to all the other Muslims on this planet.

 

[strummer]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: BBond
It's a stark reminder that 1. bush is losing his 'war on terror' because he failed to achieve the main goals in Afghanistan before he went off half cocked to Iraq for absolutely no reason whatsoever and 2. osama and al qaeda are alive and well nearly five years after 9/11 because the idiots we have in charge can't get the job done.

EDIT

and 3. This must be an election year because suddenly the terrorist plots are reappearing.

That's interesting because he's stopped several terrorist attacks, and our allies have stopped several more.

Yes, it was W personally who has stopped the plots. His magic flight suit helped him run down the scum, which he quickly wrapped up in a mission accomplished banner.

Do you really think a different administration wouldn't have been able to stop said plots?

Plots like the Mcveigh bombing?

The McVeigh bombing, huh? How about 9/11 - it did happen on Bush's watch you know. Not only that, but he got a daily brief a month before the attacks that essentially said they were coming. Guy was on vacation of course - so maybe, just maybe he was a little too focused on cutting down brush than paying attention to the PDB.

Even after this last one - we are still waiting for a connection to anybody from Iraq with planned or executed terror attacks on western targets. Maybe if Bush didn't decide to waste resources in Iraq we could have really done a complete job in Afghanistan. Maybe we could have enough presence there to stop all this sh1t going down in neighboring Pakistan. You know Pakistan - the country where OBL is hiding out.

You guys are pathetically desperate.

 

[strummer]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Is that why we went to war with the largest sectarian country in the Middle East?

We went to war with the wrong country. We should have followed up with Iran after afghanistan.[/quote]


You live in a dream world. Iran has 75 million people. We can't handle a country a third of their size. They control the land approaches to the most critical waterway on the planet. A third of the world's oil passes through that waterway. A war in Iran causes $10 a gallon gasoline. A war with Iran means 300,000 to 500,000 American soldiers in-country for at least 10 years. That is some bargain there. Lets get in a war with Iran and also watch the Chinese go apesh1t because they can't get their daily fix of oil. Watch them stop buying American debt, or worst still sell our existing debt at firesale prices (if they can find any takers). Watch half the world's economies, including our own, go spinning down the toilet.

It is easy to play armchair general when someone else is doing the dying and suffering. Its is easy to play armchair gerneral when you don't know the meaning of the word repercussions.

 

[StepUp]

I don't like Bush and his policies. But, in my opinion, no matter what color you bleed at the polls, we should be thankful when American lives are saved. If 9/11 had been foiled, would we have argued about how it was just a plot likely never to reach fruition? No doubt imperialistic policy has created additional people who don't like Americans, but just as boys will be boys, extremists will be extremists. There was terrorism before Bush and there were certainly be terrorism after him, no matter the party in power.

Edit: And I'm not arguing that we didn't have the intelligence information to stop it.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: mrSHEiK124
Well, I think Bush is a blubbering idiot. Name calling won't make you look any better Bushie.

Excuse me, fascists? When did a bunch of lunatics with suicide belts become fascist? Extremist, OK, that's reasonable because well, its true, but "Muslim fascists" not only refers to the nutjobs giving people like me a bad name, but could easily be seen as an insult to all the other Muslims on this planet.

So you're admitting that you're a fascist, then?

Originally posted by: StepUp
And I'm not arguing that we didn't have the intelligence information to stop it.

Good, because we did. If we had had a president with an I.Q. higher than the low single digits, there's a very good chance that it wouldn't have happened.

 

[Starbuck1975]

And it was safe 9 years before that, right? Spin it as you want, but there are more extremist now than there have ever been. The world is rallied against the US and we are wasting money and lives in Iraq why we sit with unsecured borders and ports.

I will concede that the war in Iraq was completely misdirected, but there are not more extremists now then there have ever been.

Islamic extremism is an ideology that has been building for several decades...fueling that ideology is a number of dynamics...disenfranchised European Muslims who live in poverty striken neighborhoods and face the very real discriminatory xenophobia that continues to persist in Europe...the perpetual conflict that surrounds Israel...the influx of western ideas and values into Muslim societies...numerous ethnic, religious and sectarian cultures forced to coexist in nations arbitrarily created through European imperialism.

All of this animosity, frustration and anger has manifested itself as Islamic extremism.

The only thing that has changed is that America is now facing a reality that the rest of the world has been contending with for some time.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

And it was safe 9 years before that, right? Spin it as you want, but there are more extremist now than there have ever been. The world is rallied against the US and we are wasting money and lives in Iraq why we sit with unsecured borders and ports.

I will concede that the war in Iraq was completely misdirected, but there are not more extremists now then there have ever been.

Islamic extremism is an ideology that has been building for several decades...fueling that ideology is a number of dynamics...disenfranchised European Muslims who live in poverty striken neighborhoods and face the very real discriminatory xenophobia that continues to persist in Europe...the perpetual conflict that surrounds Israel...the influx of western ideas and values into Muslim societies...numerous ethnic, religious and sectarian cultures forced to coexist in nations arbitrarily created through European imperialism.

All of this animosity, frustration and anger has manifested itself as Islamic extremism.

The only thing that has changed is that America is now facing a reality that the rest of the world has been contending with for some time.

That's a laughable notion, because terror attacks worlwide have increased dramatically since we invaded Iraq (so much so that our government is too embarrassed to release the figures publically).

Let's just face the fact that unilateral unwarranted warfare against the Iraqis and a failure to do right in Afghanistan has not only allowed our enemy to survive, but also reap the benefits of the deepening fissure we've made with our actions.